Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI companies destroy rare and non recoverable physical books

heraldscotland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: AI companies destroy rare and non recoverable physical books

#41

Post by pfdietz »

tgv wrote: post #37
pfdietz wrote: post #15

If books were precious physical objects of great value, why is that not reflected in their prices? Used books are usually worthless. And if their inherent value was so great, regardless of supply or use, wouldn't we be able to churn out infinite value by just printing enormous nunbers of copies and storing them? This absurd consequence shows the outrage here is without rational foundation. It's feelings run amok. Fee…

If air is so valuable to you, why don't you pay premium for it? Not that it's comparable to books, but it has the same presupposition as your question.

If someone had posted "OMG Google is using up air" I'd have been equally contemptuous.

I'm kind of surprised we aren't hearing that as an argument against burning fossil fuels, actually.

Re: AI companies destroy rare and non recoverable physical books

#42

Post by tempestn »

john_strinlai wrote: post #25
Catloafdev wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scanning process they use is _intentionally_ destructive, not accidentally destructive. It's not because they hate books or something. It's literally to stay in the law due to the legal rulings surrounding AI companies and copyright. If they had the option of not destroying the books without any risk of further lawsuit, they would. They aren't like some crazy people that just want to destroy books.

> The scanning process they use is _intentionally_ destructive, not accidentally destructive. i am aware. i am saying that there are options to _intentionally_ be non-destructive. > They aren't like some crazy people that just want to destroy books. i didnt say or imply they were

But you're implying that they could use non-destructive means and choose not to.

Re: AI companies destroy rare and non recoverable physical books

#43

Post by jerf »

vitorfblima wrote: post #27
beering wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? I don’t remember Google Books destroying scanned books and they scanned a ton of books.

IANAL, but I think you are allowed to copy work for non-commercial use.

The term you want to Google on is "fair use", and be prepared for a nightmare of complexity and fuzzy borders if you want to really learn about it.

"Non-commercial" use can relate to one particular aspect of fair use, but there definitely is no blanket "you can copy work for non-commercial use" proviso in copyright law.

It fell off the front page but here's a relevant story from today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49123300

Re: AI companies destroy rare and non recoverable physical books

#44

Post by Legend2440 »

tgv wrote: post #37
pfdietz wrote: post #15

If books were precious physical objects of great value, why is that not reflected in their prices? Used books are usually worthless. And if their inherent value was so great, regardless of supply or use, wouldn't we be able to churn out infinite value by just printing enormous nunbers of copies and storing them? This absurd consequence shows the outrage here is without rational foundation. It's feelings run amok. Fee…

If air is so valuable to you, why don't you pay premium for it? Not that it's comparable to books, but it has the same presupposition as your question.

Because air is extremely common and not scarce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value

Similarly, wholesale used books are cheap because they are extremely common and not scarce.

Re: AI companies destroy rare and non recoverable physical books

#45

Post by [deleted] »

beering wrote: post #26
beering wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? I don’t remember Google Books destroying scanned books and they scanned a ton of books.

Follow up: I can’t seem to find any ruling that says you need to destroy the scanned book. Destroying the book might bolster your case in a copyright lawsuit, but the law does not require it afaict. I doubt you would lose a lawsuit simply because you put the book in a locked warehouse after scanning it.

[deleted]

Re: AI companies destroy rare and non recoverable physical books

#46

Post by john_strinlai »

tempestn wrote: post #42
john_strinlai wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The scanning process they use is _intentionally_ destructive, not accidentally destructive. i am aware. i am saying that there are options to _intentionally_ be non-destructive. > They aren't like some crazy people that just want to destroy books. i didnt say or imply they were

But you're implying that they could use non-destructive means and choose not to.

yeah, i think they could have.

they weren't shy about pirating content before, and i think there is a decent legal argument they could have made. non-destructive scanning is also probably more expensive. so they made a business decision based on risk (and i would assume cost).

i dont think that makes them "crazy people"

Re: AI companies destroy rare and non recoverable physical books

#47

Post by qsera »

Legend2440 wrote: post #4

Who says they're rare and nonrecoverable? If they're bought in bulk from used booksellers, they're probably quite common titles. We throw away nearly a billion books every year. They're not sacred, and scanning a few million isn't a tragedy. People just don't like AI and want to be outraged about it.

>they're probably quite common titles.

Old books could have been common back in their day, but they might not be very common today.

Re: AI companies destroy rare and non recoverable physical books

#48

Post by [deleted] »

qsera wrote: post #33
pfdietz wrote: post #15

If books were precious physical objects of great value, why is that not reflected in their prices? Used books are usually worthless. And if their inherent value was so great, regardless of supply or use, wouldn't we be able to churn out infinite value by just printing enormous nunbers of copies and storing them? This absurd consequence shows the outrage here is without rational foundation. It's feelings run amok. Fee…

>why is that not reflected in their prices? Because the consumers are stupid and think being "new" is worth a lot more, for some reason, when it comes to art/literature/movies. So they are willing to pay more for new stuff that could be mediocre. I would really pay 10 times the price of some old books, but consumer demand is nearly zero because they are old, so they have gone out of print...

[deleted]

Re: AI companies destroy rare and non recoverable physical books

#49

Post by cortesoft »

I find it interesting that no one cared if these books were destroyed before, but now they are suddenly valuable and worth preserving?

These are books that were sitting in some warehouse waiting to be destroyed until it was discovered that AI companies would buy them in bulk. Most of these books are 'rare' because no one bought them, so they didn't print many, and the ones they did print weren't sold so they sat in a warehouse.

I feel like people are imagining some rare, handwritten book transcribed by some 17th century monk. That is not what these are, they are part of the millions of published books that never get any traction, are barely sold, and then are destined to fade into obscurity as they are eventually cycled out of the warehouse and into the incinerator.

But now that AI companies want to add a 'scan them first' step before destroying them, they are suddenly precious and must be preserved?

Re: AI companies destroy rare and non recoverable physical books

#50

Post by zuzululu »

pfdietz wrote: post #32
josefritzishere wrote: post #18

This is horrifying and dystopian.

The only thing horrifying here is the ridiculous reaction to this perfectly acceptable procedure.

yeah its strange, the "destructive scanning" method has been around for ages, you really can't compete with paper fed scanners
Post reply on HN